In all the circumstances, we are of the view that in the wider interests of the nation, no infant shall have the automatic right to receive instructions relating to any other religion than his own without the permission of the parent or guardian.
Further down, His Lordship continued:
We would observe that the appellant (the father) would have been entitled to the declaration he had asked for. However, we decline to make such declaration as the subject is no longer an infant.
Therefore, art 12(4) must not be read as entrenching the right to choice of religion in both parents. That being so, art 8 is not violated as the right for the parent to convert the child to Islam applies in a situation where the converting spouse is the wife as in Nedunchelian and as such, the argument that both parents are vested with the equal right to choose is misplaced. Hence the conversion of the elder son to Islam by the husband albeit under the Selangor Enactment did not violate the FC. Also reliance cannot be placed on s 5 of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1961 which provides for equality of parental rights since s 1(3) of the same Act has prohibited the application of the Act to such person like the husband who is now a Muslim (see Shamala Sathiyaseelan v Dr Jeyaganesh Mogarajah  2 MLJ 241)."